User talk:Luxionmk2
Welcome Hi, welcome to Battle Nations Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the User:Luxionmk2 page. If you need help, and there are no local admins here, you may want to visit the forums on the Community Central Wiki. Looking for live help? Then join us for an upcoming webinar to chat with staff and other Wikia editors. You can also check our Staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around Wikia. Happy editing, Dopp (help forum | blog) Hello I have noticed all the work you've done on templates. Thank you. The unitlevelbox template was unfinished and you finished it. There is one thing I have to tell you though. On the Infobox/Unit template, we will be removing any info already on the unitlevelbox template, such as HP, SP and damage. Thank you. 14:48, May 2, 2012 (UTC) Re: To answer your question to the newb, you should go by the Trooper page's example. Most other pages were overhauled prior to 1.3 and need to be overhauled again. Carb 0 16:50, May 2, 2012 (UTC) ^The Trooper is our "testing" page. Once it's done, we'll base the rest of the unit articles on it. Hi I like what you've been doing. Keep up the good work :) 00:41, May 3, 2012 (UTC) About the attackbox Hi, I followed your example on the trooper page where you put a different section for the attacks (I'm think'' that was your edit). I think it's a good idea because it differentiates the sets of stats, and it opens up the possibility for putting multiple boxes for the different attacks that units can have. However, when putting in a section for the grenadier flashbang, I just realized though that the damage values in the unitlevelbox are dependent on the attack used. But they also change from rank progression so we can't just take the damage values and put them in the unitattackbox. Not really sure what the best way to handle this is though, so figured I'd let you know. Maybe we could have multiple damage rows? I don't know how the template system works so maybe that isn't doable since everyone is gonna have different alt weapons.Silverlighted 03:15, May 3, 2012 (UTC) :It's still a work in progress. In my original design, I plan on having "Base Damage" and "Base Offense" because those numbers differ with different attacks too. The Trooper is just a sandbox, so I'll let the primary contributors decide what's best. Luxionmk2 18:07, May 3, 2012 (UTC) :There is no primary editors, we are all editors. If you feel an edit would be for the best, feel free to do it. It probably is for the best anyways 20:53, May 3, 2012 (UTC) Hello In light of all your hard work, I have granted you rollback rights. It is a useful tool that allows you to undo all the vandalism caused on one page on a single user. Only use this on intentionally malicious edits, not on edits done in good faith. 14:48, May 3, 2012 (UTC) :Thanks :) Happy to help!Luxionmk2 18:07, May 3, 2012 (UTC) Hey Nice work on the new unit info box. However, I would like to discuss it. Would you care to join . Hello On the new infoboxes, I have some questions. Why do the units' names not appear like in the original ones. Also, we won't keep info that changes through promotion, such as HP and damage. Basically, the only things I think should stay on there are constants, such as unit type and the type of blocking it has, along with a few more things. I'm positive you added them for a good reason, and I'd like to know why, so that I hopefully might have a change of heart. Thank you. 14:45, May 7, 2012 (UTC) :I was originally moving into that direction, keeping only the "constant" information, but you are left with too little information: NewUnitInfobox. After discussing this with PotatOS in chat, we felt that it was better to include more information (at least base, Rank 1 information). The Unit infobox would be more useful in this ''quick-reference fashion, instead of forcing readers to dig further. So have we changed your heart? ;) Luxionmk2 16:19, May 7, 2012 (UTC) ::Yeah, the only thing I'd like fixed is that the title doesn't show up on the infobox 20:58, May 7, 2012 (UTC) :::I see what you mean now. Fixed the template. It was excluding the entire section when there was no "name" provided, so the defaulting never triggered. Luxionmk2 21:13, May 7, 2012 (UTC) :::I removed the images on the side of HP and stuff to make it neater. It makes it more uniform, as the rest of the stuff doesn't have images 21:33, May 7, 2012 (UTC) Re: I think it's excellent. Your work is really appreciated. 00:20, May 8, 2012 (UTC) RE: Unit Attack Info Edit Yeah, the summary unit box is a pretty clumsy place for weapon damage when you are talking about units with multiple weapons, though I know they wanted it so people could see things at a glance. Ideally we would do something like group the AttackBoxes by Weapon Name or something since I believe all weapons that share a name, also share reload/ammo capacity values. I'm not a template wizard, so I don't know if there is an easy way to do that. I also agree that some of the unit progression values should be moved into the attack box, namely damage and offense, though it would appear that both those values always increase at a rate of +5/rank for each and every unit. I think an ideal layout would be something like; StaticUnitInfo (for things like blocking type, name, etc that never change) WeaponType (something that encompasses a given weapon type (like Compound Bow) with reload, ammo capacity, etc) AttackType (something that encompasses a given attack, and follows a ranking progression on damage and offense) DynamicUnitInfo (for attributes of the unit itself that change upon increasing rank, like defense and bravery) But I donno, just kind of spitballing here. Maehan 16:54, May 10, 2012 (UTC) RE: Test Grenadier Nice, feel free to play with them, I'm not particularly adept at modifying CSS and wiki templates, so they are going to be ugly for a while until I come up to speed but I come from a programming background so it shouldn't take too long. I'll probably be taking a break for a while from it at any rate. If you can get it so that the weapon type boxes align horizontally instead of vertically that would be great. And some of the conditional logic for optional fields is just absent.